About this Site

PM5412: A simple summary of Maratreanism

If I was asked to give a simple summary of Maratreanism, this is what I would say. It is not my intention to present an argument for Maratreanism, just a high-level summary of what Maratreans believe.

First of all, Maratreanism begins with a particular understanding of the
fundamental nature of reality (ontology) and the fundamental nature of
ourselves (anthropology). The most important question here, is what is
the relationship between mind and matter? There are three basic views:
the first, materialism, holds that matter is the fundamental and
ultimate reality, and mind is a derivative, a product of matter. Mind is
dependent upon matter for its existence, and cannot exist independently
from matter; matter is not in any way dependent upon mind, and can
exist independently of it. The second view, idealism, is essentially
materialism spun around one-hundred and eighty degrees — mind is the
fundamental and ultimate reality, and matter is a derivate, a product of
mind. Matter is dependent upon mind for its existence, and cannot exist
independently from mind; mind is not in any way dependent upon matter,
and can exist independently of it. The third view, dualism, holds that
both mind and matter are separate and independent existents, and each
can exist without the other — yet somehow, they interact. Maratreanism
adopts here the viewpoint of idealism.

Having identified mind as the fundamental constituent of reality, and
matter as a product of mind, the question follows: how is matter a
product of mind? Maratreanism identifies material things as a particular
class of patterns in the experiences of minds. As such, while many
idealists have claimed that matter is unreal, Maratreanism does not deny
the reality of matter — it is real for what it is. Minds are real, thus
the experiences of minds are real, thus patterns in those experiences
are real, thus matter, being naught other than those patterns, is also
real. It is not the only such class of patterns — ideas, laws,
governments, corporations, works of literature — these are patterns of
other classes.

Maratreanism then proceeds to consider more closely the nature of mind.
It concludes that mind is by its very nature incapable of having any
beginning or ending, incapable of being created or being destroyed — and
yet, it may merge and divide. That is to say, two or more minds may
merge together to become one single mind, and one single mind may split
apart to form two or more successor minds.

Maratreanism holds that mind exists only when it is experiencing. To be
asleep in a dreamless sleep, to be apart from experiences, is to undergo
an temporary interruption in one's existence. Maratreanism sees no
contradiction between this notion, and that of the incessability,
indestructibility, and everlastingness of mind — the latter implies
that there is no permanent interruption to one's existence, no sleep
from which one never wakes up, but is entirely compatible with a
temporary interruption in one's existence. From this perspective, it
follows that time is an essential aspect of mind — experiencing is
always a becoming, something never stationary, something always dynamic,
never static. Thus, mind by its nature exists within time; there is no
mind outside of time, and there being naught outside of mind, there is
naught either outside of time.

Maratreanism also believes that mind by its nature is finite — the
possibilities contained within mind, although unimaginably vast, are
nonetheless finite. Since there is no reality apart from or beyond mind,
this implies that all reality is also finite, including time itself.
Yet, how can time be finite, when we have already stated that mind
exists always in time, yet knows no beginning nor end? The answer is
that time is circular — all things repeat endlessly, not new and
differently each time, but exactly the same every time (or in other
words, only once). Every moment both before and after itself — the
past coming after the future, the future before the past.

Maratreanism believes that ethics — right and wrong, good and evil,
moral and immoral — possess an objective reality. The world is rocked
by many pressing moral questions, and there is a deep lack of agreement
as to their answers. Yet, Maratreans insist that these questions have
answers, that some answer must be right, and the other answers wrong (or
at least less right), even if we don't know what that right answer is.
We must have faith that we are forever moving further towards the true and the good and the truth about the good, even if we are as yet far off.

And we say, if there be objective goodness, why not also objective
beauty? They say — beauty is in the eye of the holder — and they point
to how different people find beauty in very different things. Yet, might
it be that some are mistaken as to beauty, being unable to see the
greater beauties, they let their eyes settle on lesser ones? Or, even if
what they see be truly beautiful, might there not be many beauties,
such that some are given the grace to perceive some, and others others
— and might all these beauties even be all parts of the one beauty, yet
our minds are too feeble to see its fundamental unity, each us limited
to appreciate that part given to us?

There is a moment when you look at something beautiful, and you cannot
believe that this feeling in you is just something arbitrary and
subjective — one is driven to believe that one has encountered
something objective. Those who think less of beauty, love beauty less.
Thus may we say — truth, goodness, and beauty — we believe
these three are one. As Keats said, "Beauty is truth, truth beauty
— that is all ye know on earth, and all ye need to know."
Maratreanism defends faith — that there are some things we ought
to believe, not on the grounds of what we would commonly consider
argument evidence, but rather because we are ethically obliged to
believe them.

The most common objection to faith, is that faith is abused — it is
used to justify all manner of atrocities, all manner of absurdities.
Faith leads people to fly planes into buildings. And yet, we should not
reject all faith on the grounds of its abuses — just as we should
not object the whole of anything on the grounds of the evil of a part of
it. Rather, we should try to examine its parts, determine which are
good, and which are evil; which are most likely to produce good, and
least likely to produce evil; which are least likely to produce good,
and most likely to produce evil. Undertaking such an analysis, we
believe that certain conclusions can be reached...